:::::Definitely... but I'll wait a bit for others to chime in on this idea and the wording, just in case :) &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 23:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Definitely... but I'll wait a bit for others to chime in on this idea and the wording, just in case :) &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 23:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

−

Alright, I updated this, still not the best, since 2$ should be created, linking to the copyleft.... but it's better than it was ;) &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 20:57, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

+

Alright, I updated this, still not the best, since 2$ should be created, linking to [[How to re-use Wikitravel guides]].... but it's better than it was ;) &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 20:57, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 01:04, 17 June 2009

Nuance

Looks good, and I agree that it's a good idea to have this option. But should we perhaps change the disclaimer at the bottom of all pages, which reads "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0," to something more nuanced? Clearly, not all of our content is Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0. --PeterTalk 12:06, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, definitely, what about just removing the 1.0? Where should we move this convo too before we fly off on a tangent? – cacahuatetalk 00:56, 21 February 2008 (EST)

To change the part "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0.", we would need to have help from someone with root access, which frankly doesn't seem too likely. Perhaps just change it to "Most content is available under $1"? Or to "Content is available under $1, with certain limitations"? Then we could link to Copyleft, which, by the way, does need some revision to clarify obligations to downstream users. --PeterTalk 01:09, 21 February 2008 (EST)

You seem to have your head wrapped around where our license needs to be, maybe you should revise the copyleft in your sandbox so we can see it and discuss as needed – cacahuatetalk 01:22, 21 February 2008 (EST)

To revive this old discussion, I'm inclined to change this message to:

I think this is accurate, right? And it's something that we can change without root access, which is nice – cacahuatetalk 21:19, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Correct, that looks good to me. I don't know whether its length might cause format problems, though—maybe take out the "are available" part if that's a problem? --PeterTalk 21:38, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I just tested it... the length is no problem, the text wraps just fine... however wikilinks aren't recognized, so I think we have to create "$2" for the second link... and I'm assuming that involves root access? – cacahuatetalk 22:38, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah right, that's what stopped me from using my version earlier... Any chance you're feeling up to pestering IB? --PeterTalk 22:53, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Definitely... but I'll wait a bit for others to chime in on this idea and the wording, just in case :) – cacahuatetalk 23:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)